Talk:Institutional racism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 


Contents

Institutional vs. structural racism[edit]

Institutional and structural racism are NOT the same thing. Institutional racism is racism within an institution. As scholar Rich Benjamin has noted, "[s]tructural racism exists ACROSS institutions, public policy, and other important domains (education, the judiciary, real estate, etc.)." (emphasis added). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.34.123 (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

See also: http://www.ywca.org/atf/cf/%7BAC4038C4-BCCA-4F24-B55C-F41063EDF6FE%7D/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf 68.82.34.123 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that institutional and structural racism are not the same thing. But they are intertwined and inseparable as structural racism is embedded in institutional racism and research on institutional racism often acrosss institutions rather than merely focusing on one particular racism. We can conceptualize "structural" in a broad or narrow sense. Narrowly, it refers to social structure encompassing all domains. Broadly, it can be interpreted as "pervasive" and "beyond individual"; in this sense, racism in institutions in one domain can be regarded as structural racism. Jingqinxin (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it could be argued that public policy and other important domains, like the ones listed, education, the judiciary, real estate, etc. could all be institutions. I believe institutional and structural racism are the same. How does systemic racism play in? We need multiple definitions for institutional racism, not just one from 1999. This article should have multiple definitions of structural and institutional racism to better the definitions. Madelinedietrich (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

casteism[edit]

Isn't casteism a form of racism? --m 07:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"functionally integrated"?[edit]

What does "functionally integrated" mean? -- The Anome 09:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write this that passage, but it means that the disparate elements of racism and bigotry in institutional racism function in an integrated manner, as part of a gestalt. Say, a racist employer in a loan company won't hire blacks above a certain level -- custodial staff, secretaries, low-level clerks, but never loan officers or managers with the power to grant loans. The company policy is also to redline black businesses and neighborhoods -- or, the predominantly white staff individually treats applications from blacks differently than they do applications from others. There is no one w/a conscience on the inside to call them on their unlawful behavior, so the practice continues over time, black applicant after black applicant.
As a result, black businesses either fail, do not thrive and can't expand. Black entrepreneurs don't have opportunities commensurate with their other-race counterparts. Because of racist lending practices, homeowners may lose their homes, or cannot obtain mortgages. There's little employment within the community, because cash-strapped, undercapitalized minority businesses cannot afford to hire, or cannot compete for a quality workforce. Lack of employment opportunities means some people who might not do so otherwise turn to destructive livelihoods that undermine the safety and well-being of the communities in which they reside -- in short, violent street crime, burglaries, drugs. Real estate agents also frequently do not show house-hunting blacks properties located in nonblack neighborhoods. Because of white flight (occasioned by racism and fear) and black flight (occasioned by the opportunities of integration and financial means) and the subsequent ghettoization of America's inner cities into islands of poverty and crime; and the lack of a loan, a moderate- or low-income family may not then be able to find an affordable home in a step-up (white or black) neighborhood, where the schools are better. The higher incidence of street crime occasioned by all sorts of factors -- among them, lack of legitimate employment -- causes law enforcement to treat the majority of black males they see as suspects. The result is racial profiling and other discriminatory practices. Blacks are denied service at certain establishments, they are followed around while they shop, and doors are closed in their faces because shopowners fear robberies.
One scenario is that blacks actually can obtain loans -- but at far higher rates than their like-situated, nonblack counterparts. Cash-strapped black families may go without dental appointments and health insurance, juggling bills from month to month. That results in poorer health, delaying doctor visits until an undetected ailment possibly has reached a life-threatening stage. And it results in lousy credit ratings. No credit cards, and people pay higher prices on layaway, or go without.
No access to loans means Blacks are forced to live in an area they can afford -- a possibly dangerous community with failing schools. The family also cannot get a loan for new car when the old one breaks down. They resort to public transportation, which means they cannot get to the food-barn type, big box stores in the suburbs and end up paying higher prices for groceries, children's clothes and other items than their white counterparts. The children obtain a crappy education and end up either dropping out and falling victim to the ills that beset many low-income urban ghettoes, or emerge ill-prepared to compete in the workforce. They get caught up in the criminal justice system, or get low-paying jobs, and the cycle of poverty continues.
I could go on about the "they all look alike" syndrome in eyewitness testimony, coerced confessions, and the prison system, inequities in sentencing based on powdered cocaine and crack cocaine, etc., racism in the application of the death penalty, differences in the way white-collar crime involving millions (and billions) of dollars is prosecuted and punished versus the way street crime involving tens or hundreds of dollars is handled, etc. -- but I think you get the idea. That's what "functionally integrated" means. Racism operates as a system of working parts (kind of like a Rube Goldberg device), rather than an isolated incident; rather than a cluster of random, haphazard events, that militate against the progress of a person, or groups of persons, based on color/ethnic identity. deeceevoice 13:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have an articulated response. Jingqinxin (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed paragraph on immigration law[edit]

I removed the following paragraph, because I think it deals more with the socio-economic repercussions of immigration law, than institutional racism itself. Thoughts?

This kind of racism puts a burden to local economies due the sub exploitation of human resources, less income for a professional that performs menial jobs means less taxes and increases the strain on a government's social spending and tax payers. This circular logic produces social tension and clashes blaming those that fall victim of this practice as responsible for the deterioration of the economy.

Peruvianllama 06:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It may indicate racism if the laws for immigration from some countries require more qualificatins than from others. If the laws require immigrants from certain countries of a particular religeon require a more thorough backgrond checks, or if people of some countries are encouraged to come more as tourists and students than as immigrants, or even worse if some people are told they are unwelcome, I guess that would be racism at a national level, right?--Wikishagnik (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

canadaimmigrants.com link[edit]

The link reference to canadaimmigrants.com should be reviewed by more readers. It appears to censor messages that provide evidence contrary to central message of the website. Is wikipedia potitically neutral? (preceding unsigned comments by 24.17.157.176 (talk · contribs))

You may be interested to read WP:NPOV for info on Wikipedia's stance on neutrality. As for the link itself, unless it's totally irrelevant, I personally don't think it should be removed. Perhaps its bias could be made clear in its description - 'canadaimmigrants.com - a group strongly opposing Canadian immigration laws', or something similar but better written. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 09:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Carmicheal was a member of the Black Panther Party and became a black separatist, I am only adding information listed in his biography so please don't revert it again, unless you change his biography as well (unsigned post)

Actually, I knew Stokely personally and never thought of him as a Panther, associating him instead with SNCC, the AAPRP and Pan-Africanism. He was connected with the BPP for a year before finding he clashed on important issues. It's a bit misleading to characterize him as a Panther. Further, Stokely was a nationalist and a Pan Africanist. When I see "separatist," I think RNA, which Stokely was not. He was a nationalist; there's a difference. deeceevoice 15:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Institutional Racism does not equal Structural Racism[edit]

These two are not equal! This article incorrectly conflates the two. Structural racism is larger, and deals with the how the interactions within and between different institutions, in combination with social processes and norms and individual racism, work to create different outcomes along racial lines. _laura t

I haven't even read the entire article. My eye was drawn to the weasely POV. But if you think that's the case, then rewrite it. I don't even have the patience right now to deal with the rather weak example given -- though I did delete the religion example. With all the real institutional racism out there -- and especially given my explanation of it earlier on this page -- you'd think they could do better than culturally biased standardized testing (assuming they really wanted to, which, IMO, seems highly doubtful).deeceevoice 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


-- -->The majority of the two paragraphs above are totally irrelevant to "institutional racism" and "structural racism" as encylopedia entries and should have no bearing on the content of this entry. That is, with the exception that adding the tag "theory" or a "con" section might be useful. This isn't a blog where we can spout off our political opinions about black crime, it is an encyclopedic entry on a body of (contested or not) theory. Let's keep it at that please! _laura t 8/23/06

And who says I blame black crime on anyone and everyone but blacks? Please. Take your silly ASSumptions elsewhere -- preferably away from this talk page. Laura t has it right. Your nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with this article. *x* deeceevoice 15:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

White Racism[edit]

Some one must write articles about racism by one racial group, and how go ahead. White Racism and anothers. 212.97.182.180 08:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Affirmative Action???[edit]

Some one explain HOW Affirmative Action is Institutional Racism???!!!??? It's Institutional Racism NOT to have Affirmative Action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlon (talkcontribs) 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Institutional racism is favouring one race over another in burocratic processes, so AA qualifies by this definition. Quote from the article:
Institutional racism (or structural racism or systemic racism) refers to a form of racism which occurs specifically in institutions such as public bodies, corporations, and universities.
Read before asking stupid questions. --Zslevi (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? Suicidesamurai 20:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Affirmative action factors the race of the candidates into the equation, that sounds like institutional racism to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.15.198.106 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

When you put blinkers on to the social legacy of oppressed people of course you see it this way. When you fail to factor in the ongoing legacy of total racism against people who are discriminated at every turn then it would not make sense. It is looking at the situation incomplete. So in SA you have a BEE to REPAIR the legacy of apartheid, where disadvantages based on race exist. To fix that problem, a very real problem, you need Positive Action, such as BEE and Af Action. You do not need too much brain cells to see that its entire purpose is like (gender equality) to promote balance in a very unbalanced world.--Inayity (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Academic racism[edit]

Academic racism is unsourced and it seems that the content of it is covered by this article. CJ 12:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Classification contentious?[edit]

I added the following sentence to the end of the second paragraph:

As with the more general term of "racism", "institutional racism" carries with it a socially negative connotation which can make accurate classification contentious.

along with a "fact" tag. To me, that seems like something that is anecdotally true: no-one wants to be called a racist, and so any such claim will be contested with a list of facts as long as your arm. But at the same time, it seems like weaseling out if I don't have a source. I just have no idea where to look in the literature for such a source. Or even what literature in which to look. Thoughts? Is it worth keeping it in and hoping for a source? Better yet, can someone source it? --PeruvianLlama(spit) 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Examples of institutional racism[edit]

The example of the eagle feather law is not a form of institutional racism. It is unref'd and incorrect. I am removing this material. Phyesalis 21:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

links to page about Institutionally Racist pollicies[edit]

shouldn't there be links to say apartate in south africa or slavery in the U.S.A. and other things like that i just listed a couple because i see it has there sections about the U.K. and sri lanka which i think is irrelevant because those are two random countries Charlieh7337 (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lanka section[edit]

I've tagged this with a 'Totally disputed' flag and the entire first paragraph with attribution necessary tags. Frankly, it's an obvious nationalist POV rant and, arguably, comes close to being racist itself. If these sorts of claims are being made they need to be properly sourced.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with: "The most prominent recent convert to this ‘Tamil grievance’ position has been the United States, which in a promising step forward, acknowledged the legitimate political aspirations of the Tamil people."
"...a promising step forward"? Not exactly objective.--Monsterboy (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Section on Singapore[edit]

A section on institutionalized racism in Singapore would be a worthy addition to this article. 121.79.19.4 (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Classism[edit]

I removed this paragraph on institutional classism, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with institutional racism.

  1. In 1935, the U.S. Congress passed the Social Security Act, guaranteeing an income for millions of workers after their retirements, however, the Act specifically excluded domestic and agricultural workers — many of whom were Mexican-American, African-American, and Asian-American. These workers, therefore, were not guaranteed an income after retirement, thus had less opportunity to save, accumulate, and pass wealth to their future generations.

Any qualms about this? -Aeonoris (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Classism and racism are EXTREMELY closely tied, especially in America. Often, racism was used as a means to divide-and-conquer poor farmers (black and white) who were upset with the government or local landowners who had exploited them. I think the section you quoted is a prime example of institutional racism, where a law is put into place that affects a certain class so that, in effect, it will affect a certain race. This is exactly why poll taxes were instated, because they disproportionately affected blacks but was not overtly racist in writing. 98.236.191.219 (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
While it may be said that it had an effect on a higher percentage of certain races, this in itself is not racism. For example, if there were cutbacks in higher education (which would disproportionally effect Caucasian and Asian populations), said cutback would not be an example of racism. Talk about classism (even though it is sometimes related to racism) belongs in the classism article. The simple fact that races are not evenly distributed across class does not make class discrimination equal to racial discrimination. -Aeonoris (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be rewritten[edit]

It completely sucks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.39.156.190 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is not any encyclopedia article. It is a screed with a strong and apparently unchallengeable POV, a list of grievances, full of poorly sourced or unsourced statements, many anecdotal, and nothing close to sociology.Avocats (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been 6 years. Nothing has changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.54.78.138 (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Carts and Horses - what ARE we talking about?![edit]

This article is predicated upon a concept, "racism", which is not defined anywhere within it. At the same time the article seems to be founded upon the common but unstated predicate that: "Racism is Bad". We don't want to be "Bad" therefore we don't want to be "Racist". We react something like this: "Tell me what racism is so I can prove to you that I'm not a racist because I am good". In my opinion Racism is a Western cultural concept that forms part of a political ideology.

In my dictionary there are two entries for Racism:

  1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
  2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

These seem to me to contain three "definitions", (there are probably others)which are, crudely summarized:

  • a belief that race accounts for differences in "human character"
  • a belief of racial superiority
  • a belief in prejudiced discrimination

There are issues here that need to be addressed:

  • What are we talking about when we say "human character"?
  • What do we mean by "superiority" - superior on what scale?
  • Is there a realistic alternative to prejudiced/pre-judged) discrimination - can we make each decision starting from first principles every time?

It is not possible to say that either: "race accounts for xxx " or that "race does NOT account for xxx ". For example, certain diseases, such as sickle cell anaemia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_anaemia#Epidemiology or sarcoidosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcoidosis#Epidemiology are predominantly "black diseases" but they are not exclusively black diseases (as far as I know). So, even at the "simple" physical/biological/genetic level, things are not (sic) black and white. It is not either/or for any complex system especially a living one.

It is not necessary to resolve the central issue of "What is race?", for this article to be rewritten in an encyclopaedic manner, only that it acknowledge the issues, and identifies clearly how it uses the terms and where. At the moment it assumes all of its predicates while mixing and changing between different meanings and inferences throughout.

In my opinion "the problem" of racism, or any -ism, is the impact of prejudiced discrimination in a society where difference is not valued as highly as success and where success is measured in terms of quantity not quality. This is detrimental to the individual, to diversity and ultimately I believe to society itself. There seems to me to be an natural creative tension between inclusion and exclusion that is necessary for development, but which is being corrupted by socio-economic forces.

Racism seems to me to be a social construct, an ideological/subjective interpretations, and which is based upon subordinate concepts of race, nation, culture and country.

Prejudiced discrimination seems to me to be the output of learning. The issue with it is only its degree of fixity at any time. We need to find ways to determine when and to what degree to adhere to what we believe we have learned or experienced previously in determining how we act or behave in the present.

LookingGlass (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you have missed the point? The issue that the term was originally coined to describe was one where an organisation exhibited a particularly unpleasant feature; that although not all the members of the organisation were to be condemned as participating in exhibiting that feature, those that did were in positions of sufficient power to ensure that overall the organisation did. Further, the implication was that these persons were of sufficient authority to ensure that the repellant feature was self perpetuating and resistant to all attempts by men of good will to change it.

For example: I might argue (I don't) that the Metropolitan Police of the City of London are institutionally corrupt. You should not assume I direct that allegation at any particular officer, many of whom (in this example) may be working with superhuman effort to rid the force of corruption. In contrast I would argue that the mafia is not merely institutionally corrupt but that corruption defines the orgaisation and every member of the organisation participates in that corruption.

Thus to say "the Met is rascist" is a nonsense. To say the Met is institutionally rascist has much more meaning and demands an investigation of who it is that causes the problem, how they are able to exert the power, how they have resisted efforts to clean up the force, and what actions are to flow from this understanding. That being so I don't need to know too much about rascism, just to know that I don't like it when I do see it, in whatever guise, and want our police free of it.

IMV one must be careful, not to tear the word racism from it's adjective "institutional" and then head off down whetever road that word alone might lead you. Drg40 (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Focus here seems too narrow. I came upon this article in my search for info re racism/segregation, sexism, heterosexism, etc. in institutions. I've been reading about Freemasonry which seems to be but one example. Others in US society include (based on my observations) most houses of worship, fraternal organizations, virtually all cemeteries, etc., etc. Please forgive me if this is not on point; I'm new to this talk stuff.--216.176.240.1 (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

removed uncited section[edit]

I removed the following section:

The under-representation of Latino and Asian American males in mass media such as TV and movies has also been charged as institutional racism.[who?] Although Hispanics make up over 15% of the American population and Asian Americans make up 5%, they individually make up less than 3% of all characters in prime time.[1] Racism against Hispanic males and Asian American males is even more accentuated by the fact that there are very few instances of Hispanic male/White female or Asian male/White female pairings, while the opposite White Male/Female Hispanic or Asian is almost universal.[original research?]

Because it's been uncited for over a year. If anyone wants to cite and reinstate, go ahead, but it seems rather preachy and not factual. --75.73.176.26 (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Validation[edit]

The headers seem to indicate serious concerns with the quality and validity of the entry. From a UK perspective (and, no thanks to some random commentator below, UK is not 'just a random country' - we might not have invented imperialism and racism, but we've done quite a lot to develop the concepts, as well as, hopefully, to atone for them and seek remedies) - where was I? No, speaking from what I like to think is an expert position, I feel that the page, while needing a lot of tidying up, is on the right lines. The use of Macpherson's report - which has had immense impact leading to new statutory duties and legislation not just in UK but across the EU - shows just how 'institutional' and indirect racism, inherent in structures, operates. I am less sure about symbolic racism - 'Indian mascots' etc - but accept that they demonstrate mindsets which underpin and maintain / hinder challenges to, structures that embody institutional racisms: the key fact in all this is the silencing of debate and the attempt to 'naturalise' inequalities...

Comment by MRDJ - Professor of Diversity & Equality in Health & Social Care and specialist advisor to UK NHS; editor of the journal Diversity & Equality in Health & Care.

Msrc (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The headers should be fixed to indicate more order on the page. The references for many areas in this article are also lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apinkins (talkcontribs) 15:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

More examples of institutional racism[edit]

The article lists instances of institutional racism in certain regions of the world, but the list is nowhere near complete. To add on to this list, my proposition is to add a section regarding institutional racism in South Africa. For example, one of my proposed changes is: "In South Africa institutional racism has been a powerful means of excluding from resources and power any person not categorized or marked as white." The article I got this from then goes on to give examples. I have a reliable scholarly source for this statement (from academic search premier), and I also have a few more statements to add. Overall, adding a section regarding South Africa should inspire others to list more instances of institutional racism, thus giving the article more insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJIT HUMNV (talkcontribs) 15:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Peer review & responses during the educational assignment Winter 2014[edit]

Content[edit]

Your content was very good. We found a few grammatical/spelling errors ("Departments that focus on creating courses that educate on American culture and race need to stop being seeing as optional", "institutions of higher education that have traditionally of catered to a specific population", etc.). Under the heading "Institutional racism in higher education:" there is a missing citation at the end of quotations, first paragraph. I (Reyna) recommend not ending the first paragraph with a direct quotation but rather add a sentence or two with own words to end it. Another recommendation would be to add an introductory phrase to direct quotations.

I (Shanti) found a place missing a citation in the first sentence, third paragraph under institutional racism faced by students. It's a great bit of data and readers will wonder where it came from. Overall, reading your article was informative and interesting; readers will gain a good introductory understanding regarding racism in the institutional setting, especially regarding faculty.

Figure[edit]

We had no concerns regarding the figure used in your article. The figure represented what you discussed in your article regarding racial breakdown of faculty in higher education. It appears to be added appropriately. Good job!

References[edit]

Your references also appear to be appropriate. Although the majority come from journals, you included a New York Times article as well as information from the American Education Research Association. Your research appears to be varied and appropriate for the article. Again, good job! Baileyshanti (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)baileyshanti

Responses[edit]

Yessi did a rewrite of the section on institutional racism faced by students. We added a couple more statements with references for clarification as well as adding citations where they were missing. We also reformatted our citations so that they mirrored other citations for this page (that is, the format is now APA style for each citation, not just in-text citations with author name, date/page number.

Where's Australia in all this?[edit]

Sadly the Australian history is not a happy reflection on multiculturalism. As far back as the 1880's we had racially motivated immigration policies that disadvantaged Asian (specifically Chinese) applicants. The White Australia Policy was notorious as a manifesto of government-sanctioned racism. so... where's our section? Alas not my forté but it would be good to see at least some mention. M. 101.113.47.250 (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I am working on the sandbox for In Australia, also In Kenya with regards treatment of aboriginal populations and specific disparate treatment by the gov't as in Canada. Give it a few weeks for completion... Robco311 (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

2012 Tag why is it there (notice)[edit]

Before I remove it, I am asking for help to locate the discussion to see if the issue is still pending. I do not see any major problem with the article that it needs the help of an expert.--Inayity (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I also noticed that, but left it in as the article still has a long way to go... Robco311 (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Canadian Aboriginal Residential School System and Truth and Reconcilliation Commission[edit]

There were so many problems with the Aboriginal Truth and Reconciliation Commission section that no amount of editing could fix it.

First off, this section is not about the Aboriginal Truth and Reconciliation Commission (which isn't even the right name of the commission). The editor seems to want to talk about the Canadian Indian Residential School System, which is already covered in the section that is immediately before the deleted section. Since there is a well-written Wikipedia page already, there should only be a brief overview of the Canadian Indian Residential School System, with a clear link to the Canadian Indian Residential School System Wikipedia page. Since we have this already, we don't need two sections on the same topic on a single Wikipedia page.

The wording that I used to create the section titled "Canadian Indian Residential School System" was taken directly from the Wikipedia page of the same name. That Wikipedia page has been editing around 1500 times by multiple users, is well sourced, and has multiple reviewers. It seems to me that there is information about the Canadian Indian Residential School System that you want to add, and if you feel it is worthy of being added, then add it to the Canadian Indian Residential School System. You will likely get some very good feedback as to whether it is appropriate or not. If your edits and references are added to the Canadian Indian Residential School System, then depending on whether the edits flow with the current wording of the summary, I would see no problem in adding it to this summary. It is just a brief summary. It is not the place to introduce information that is not covered on the main Wikipedia pages for this topic. You can't possibly cover the entire native residential school experience in two paragraphs, which is why there are links to better written pages.

Finally, this page is about institutional racism. Everything you write on this page needs to be able to directly link back to the main topic, which is institutional racism. Even if some of the stuff you write are true or not, or well sourced or not, if the edits can't be linked back to the main topic of the Wikipedia article, it shouldn't stand.DivaNtrainin (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The article piece is primarily to discuss Institutional racism -your attempt to vandalize non-withstanding[edit]

Lets not do edit wars. This -[which is not part of the discussion] details the lenghts to which others have gone to remove and whitewash the extent of the crimes perpetrated against the First Nations. 2 paragraphs is not enough to go into all the attempts to cover up a 'final solution', a termed coined at the highest level of government 35 years prior to the NAZI's using it for their own pogroms against their victims. There is no need to link it to the main article, the citations in it validate every sentence made. Stories of buried priests babies being dug up and moved when the schools closed should horrify everyone, you choose to remove that truth to serve your agenda. The section is not about the Aboriginal Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it is about institutional racism. Let it stand for others to hack at, you should stand away. Robco311 (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So, if this is about institutional racism, then talk about institutional racism. Don't just go through a list of attrocities and indicate how upsetting it is. That's not what a good Wikipedia article is about. For example, you don't need to emphasize that forced sterilization is victimizing. That should be obvious to most people. The reason that I reverted those wording is because they were weasel words. I suggest that you read Wikipdia's Style guide as it pertains to weasel words.
You state that two paragraphs are not enough for this subject. I agree. That's why we have a whole Wikipedia page on the subject matter. Go to Canadian Indian residential school system and make all the edits you want. Because that page's watchlist has 80 editors keeping track of change, and there is a good chance that some of the points you raise have already been discussed on the talk page. If what you want is to mention the crimes perpetrated against First Nations, then you really should be editing that page first. In fact, you will have space to mention more other details of the aboriginal residential school system. If we look at your paragraph, then it is not complete enough to cover the subject of aboriginal residential school system, but the only way for that to accomplish is to take over the entire Institutional racism page, and that is not good Wikipedia writing practices. That's why I linked to the larger and more detailed article. Before you do any other edits, I suggest you read WP:SOAP , regarding editorializing on Wikipedia.
As I said before, I took the edits directly from other well-written and well reviewed Wikipedia pages, like the Canadian Indian residential school system page. If you feel there is information about this is whitewashing this issue, then go to that Wikipedia page and edit away. If it is accepted on those pages, then I have no problem with accepting it on this page. However, before you do so, please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style to get a sense of appropriate editing.DivaNtrainin (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputed edits[edit]

The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. Thats what defines Institutional Racism. I wrote of the failure of the church to provide services in canada to the ethnic children rendered into its care, not about the residential schools. You removed that and replaced it with plagarized material explaining the residential schools. The fact that the church ran the schools needed that backdrop to show the continued, ingrained racism, not of the individuals, but of the system that allowed social workers(gov't) to remove babies from mothers, children from their families, and deliver them to a chop shop (residential schools) where TB infected kids were bedded with healthy kids whom had no immunities, abused and neglected, and left dying at a higher rate than if they had been left alone in their pagan villages. The worst of the abuse was doled out to the ones who were not christians (by Clerics and staff). Stop trying, you cannot change the past. If you want to write about the schools, be my guest. I'm writing about institutional racism - the two are not the same Robco311 (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

What's your point? If it's that we should have a section on the residential school system, then done.

First, why is your user page non-existing? Maybe a block or two? Anyhoo, no matter how much you couch it in fine rethoric, the 1st thing you did was remove a line for being too long up for citation. 2min resulted in 5 cites to replace your vandalism. If you really wanted to improve the article thats where you should have gone first. I see in sixties scoop where your edits were reversed. Your canada agenda has a trail that is easily followed. You removed my piece and replaced it with one you copied from another site, then removed key words to impose the opposite meanings, which is the vandalism. That you removed the paragraph to replace it with un-original whitewash makes you subject to scrutiny, the claim that its regurgitated atrocities falls flat, see the cites and the govt vetted reports which list them by the thousands. My short update fills in while keeping on topic, and is 2k in a 500k article. Grab it, pay attention, the material is relevant to show the racism carried out under official approval by an institution, even the pope apologized, the rcmp, the govt and the people of canada. Now you should apologize also to wikipedians that have put up with this far too long...Robco311 (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you so against putting your edits on the Canadian Indian residential school system Wikipedia page? The reason why I want you to add it to that page and other well-moderated pages is so that you can get feedback from other editors and there will be consensus regarding whether to include this in Wikipedia or not. It will also prevent an edit war, since it won't be one editor vs another editor. It will be a group of editors coming together. As I said before, if you can get other editors on your side, then I will let the edits stand. What really surprises me is that you rant about how people should know about the aboriginal experience in Canada, but you refuse to take the simple steps to tell anyone about it.
The thing is that you correctly point out that I "copied from another site", which is something I mentioned I did in my own comments. I copied from a well-moderated, relevant, well -sourced Wikipedia page. That's not only allowed, but indicative that I am trying to be consistent with the writing and style of other editors. In fact, I will do more copying and pasting from one of the Wikipedia policy pages:
"Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them.
"Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion"A dvocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.
Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view.
I will start reverting your edits unless you start getting more feedback regarding your edits. I don't think they are well-written, but don't take my word for it. If an edit war occurs, then you may be blocked from doing any edits. However, don't worry. They don't take away your user page for starting edit wars or being disruptive. Think about it, why would they take away your user page for being disruptive? Isn't it better to block people who are making inappropriate edits22:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Once more. I am working on Institutional racism. Whatever soapbox you're on, get over yourself. I am not working on the residential schools, whatever your opinion is. You go over there and play your edit games elsewhere. Facts and sources are the only currency that matter here, notability and research. Let's doit! Robco311 (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, if you are going to work on Institutional racism, then work on it. The entire page needs work on, so I am going to challenge you to start with the introduction and work down. One of my main problems is that your style of writing is frankly terrible, and if you work on the entire page, I think you are going to improve. For example, you randomly like to capitalize words for no apparent reason. You don't understand how to put in references to other Wikipedia pages, and you include weasel words. The reason I deleted your passage was because it seemed that my section and your section was the exact same topic, only yours seemed to be a random collection of ideas. I deleted it because we shouldn't have two sections on the same topic on the same Wikipedia page. Let me put it this way. I couldn't summarize your section into a sentence or two, because it seemed like you were going off on a tangent. So, here is my challenge, provide one of the two things:
Summarize what you are trying to say in a sentence or two. Don't worry about references. Just tell me what you are trying to say.
Tell me in one to two sentences, what general information you think was missing in my passage that needed to be added
If you provide this, other editors can help you figure out the best wording for this section.If you can't do this, its reflective that you are interested in an edit war.DivaNtrainin (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


No, you are the one deleting 2 paragraphs to get you own WP:POV across couching it with accusations of weasel words and copy and paste edit jargon. Leave it alone until another editor gets involved. You are actively WP:VAND the entry. You were not interested in the topic until I expanded the Canada section. You added two copied paragraphs and deleted the sourced piece. I don't see anything but a biased racism fact slant to your entry. I did change it (your entry) and added sources and correcting the introduced errors, but you keep returning your weasel entry and deleting the original. Step away, other editors will step up. Also, accusing me of bad writing is really low, especially coming from a cut 'n paste artist like yourself.

Of course I want other editors involved. That's why I encouraged you to post to other more active Wikipedia pages. If you could run your editing by some other editors, they would agree that you need to work on your writing. I am trying to help you, but I can't help you until you tell me what you are trying to say. Personally, I don't think you understand aboriginal issues. You don't understand the wide range of experiences and the complexities of the aboriginal residential school system. That's why I keep linking to a larger Wikipedia article, because this issue is larger than a short summary on this page. If you want to talk about racism, then here is my opinion: You are expressing a view that is similar to a lot of people who are racist against natives. Let's put the arguement as to who is racist aside,because no one will win that argument. Instead, give me something to work with, and I can help you improve your writing. Oh and if you want me to put in more references, just say the word and it will only take a minute or two.DivaNtrainin (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Both of you have been warned for edit warring. More reverts may result in blocks. If you want to get other editors involved, please look at the options at WP:DRR. --NeilN talk to me 16:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like she has done this before, like tic-tac-toe, stalemate is the best you can hope for, so the long game is in. The english language is so complex, there are so many ways of telling the story, you nuns just don't get it. The game is up, you can jigger, limit the exposure to 15 years, think that we will forget, play babble with the wording, thinking I won't call you out. Not the case, you stay alert for all canadian gheese, there's keen eyes in blinds watching the woods for ducks..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeCeePhoto (talkcontribs)

Is this supposed to mean something? Because it reads like utter gibberish to me. Instead of spouting conspiracy theories involving nuns perhaps you could discuss appropriate and clear wording. Paul B (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The point of the Institutional racism article is understanding the various forms such racist policies took in countries around the world where such actions became institutionalized by implementation via the forces of law and order. In each country, this took different forms, determined by the laws or edicts being enforced. It’s (the article’s) purpose is not to right great wrongs; nor petit slights, either. Determining the meaning behind such terms as ‘Cultural Genocide’ as it applies to disparate treatment of ethnic minorities is more important than describing atrocities committed in the name of a systematic policy. To distill each country down to one or two sentences does this a dis-service, but if it is well sourced and referenced to other more complex and detailed wiki’s, the brief coverage should suffice and links to more details would provide guidance. It had been suggested that I should just state what I am trying to say and another editor would clarify the language and reference it. I did that with the Australia section, barely 2min went by before it was reverted by another editor for lacking sources. He was right, it should be sourced, and 30min later that was done. Why an editor should think to impose their timeline for corrections is beyond my experience, I would think that a little leeway for providing the ref’s and cite’s (not 5min’s) would not be too much to ask. That being said, why didn't he also remove her unsourced piece?

 

If there is a 2 sentence reduction that would be appropriate, the following would be my choice. DivaNTrainin failed to recognize the term and removed the reference inappropriately on the last edit she did to the Institutional racism article, stating that “Cultural Genocide only applied to the destruction of documents and not to the disparate treatment of the ethnic population”. I would contend that this editor, as previously stated, is intent on removing valid references in pursuit of an agenda and as such should be reverted in the edits she made to the article. The previously established article on Cultural Genocide on Wikipedia does indeed state this:

 ·  In 2007, a Canadian Member of Parliament criticized the Ministry of Indian Affairs' destruction of documents regarding the treatment of First Nations members as "cultural genocide". Based on this review, she would have been correct; however, a more complete reading of the text will show: Under the same Examples of the term's usage: The Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada concluded that the Canadian Indian residential school system "can best be described as 'cultural genocide.'"

This was sourced here: "Canada's Forced Schooling of Aboriginal Children Was 'Cultural Genocide,' Report Finds". NY Times. 2 June 2015. Retrieved 2 June 2015.

In the portions of the text she removed, this was referenced and incorrectly deleted.

Came here as a neutral observer from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Wish to point out that while I believe the sentence referencing Cultural Genocide is well sourced, it arguably distracts from the topic at hand (this is not an article on Cultural Genocide, and providing that context is only beneficial in the absence of additional sources within the section). So I leave that to the best intentions of other editors on this article. However, I do have to agree that the edits to remove the section on "Canada's Holocaust" should stand for a few reasons. First, it uses non-neutral language in describing that this book "laid to rest" the controversy, which is a bit WP:SUBJECTIVE. Arguably, the report from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada would have "laid to rest" any existing controversy - it's also a useful resource for citing claims within this section. You can find that government report here. Which brings us to my second point about the "Canada Holocaust" reference, which is that better sources (the TRC report) are available, and should be used in lieu of what appears to be independently published scholarship. Finally, regarding the addition of the ATRC section, we should balance it against the coverage of similar topics on the same page. The section removed by DivaNtrainin was already longer than the entire section on Apartheid in South Africa. As a WP:SUMMARY article, it's important to retain balance here and defer more details to their own article, as DivaNtrainin had suggested for these edits. Just my two cents! Owlsmcgee (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

talk has pointed out that the 'Cultural Genocide' ref was sourced, but disagrees that it was necessary to the topic. Here I must interject: Which topic, Indian Residential schools (canada) or Institutional racism? In responding to the charges of Institutional racism the truth and recociliation commission (Canada) presented a report that states that it was indeed Cultural Genocide. My charge is that the topic was hijaaked by this editor when she removed the Aboriginal Truth and Reconciliation commission piece and replaced with the off topic WP:SUMMARY on the Canadian Residential school system. Also, The canadian holocaust reference was also made to the topic, residential schools, not to the piece removed - which was Institutional racism. Lets keep on point, you've made good and valid statements about the content, but missed the larger context here. Find the removed content on the Aboriginal Truth and Reconciliation Commission and review that in the context of "institutional racism'. I also have to agree with you that her piece correctly is a WP:SUMMARY piece while the piece removed was researched to add context to the main topic which is Institutional racism. The apartheid(SA) section of Institutional racism has not gotten the review as yet to expand it properly, so it shouldn't be used as a gauge of how much she added with the copied piece. The piece she removed had ref and cites to the main article(IRS) already. There were not 2 sections on the same topic, she removed mine and I did not, it turn, remove her's when I replaced mine, it was merely corrected where her cut and paste had left out key wording, reversing the meaning. I should have additionally removed her statement about the ATRC then it would have been more nuanced and flowing as opposed to two sections on the same topic. Robco311 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A new beginning. Episode V[edit]

As I said above, "Lets do it!!" Stick to content, improve with good citations, correct the defects and do not play fast or loose with the facts. I am an imperfect writer, but no more cut and paste edits to support a point of view that absolves entities from responsibilities. Assume good intentions. Please review the need for the schools section Robco311 (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

New Australia section[edit]

The new Australia section [1]] added by BeeCeePhoto seems problematic. Sources include an open wiki and an anonymous presentation. The first paragraph is entirely unsourced. Other portions may be coatracks/synthesis in that the sources don't refer to institutional racism. --NeilN talk to me 00:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

And horribly non-neutral wording. Example:

In reality, during this period removal of the half-castes was related to the fact that most were offspring of domestics whom by removing them allowed the mothers to continue working as help on the farm and removing the white landowners from responsibility for fathering them and from social stigma for having such mixed race children visible in the home. Also when they were left alone on the farm they became targets of the men who contributed to the rise in the population of half-caste children[65]. The institutional racism was government policy gone awry, one that allowed babies to be ripped from their mothers at birth and this continued for most of the 20th century. That it was policy and kept secret for over 60 years is a mystery that no agency has solved to date[66].

--NeilN talk to me 01:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

None of this is unsourced, and can be referenced to wiki's that already cover the subject. The topic, Institutional racism, needs the ref and cites to illustrate that this was gov't policy at the time. Robco311 (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Just because poor refs are used in other articles doesn't mean they can be used in this article. Also, material appropriate in other articles may not be appropriate for this topic. --NeilN talk to me 01:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be your opinion, duly noted. Robco311 (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with NeilN that the section seems a bit biased and poorly referenced. It also seems to be a bit too long - perhaps it needs to be trimmed down a bit and a {{Further}} link to Racism in Australia put at the top. (The same could be said for the US section.)
The formatting is a bit of mess, but that's relatively easily fixed.
WP:USERGENERATED explicitly tells us that wikis - eg http://stolengenerations123.wikispaces.com/Emergence+of+the+child+removal+policy - are not generally acceptable as reliable sources, likewise https://prezi.com/-oi8o6s2gxfk/child-scoop/ Mitch Ames (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I too found it long in the tooth, and cites could be improved. This collaboration I am quite happy to go along with as it improves the article and will follow up on in the next few days. Compared to the Canada section this can be called editing. Thanx Robco311 (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI I have applied a search template that will locate reliable sources. My first use of this template resulted in this return. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  01:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Update of paragraphs on Criminal Conviction in US and UK sections[edit]

Don't quite see how allowing for changes in attitude towards policies that institutionally affected minorities or a sub-culture could be construed as political biased. Leaving out changes that have occurred to either positively or negatively change the actions of the institutions towards people previously affected is leaving out 'the rest of the story'. To point out that mandatory minimums affected minorities disparately and that there are high level talks within the halls of congress to make changes, or M.P's in the UK doing the same for IPP sentences and the disappeared, how is that a political view. Numerous articles covered both topics and the citations bear this out. I'll stand by the paragraphs as being non-biased. Robco311 (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Institutional racism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

State racism redirects to Michel foucault[edit]

The article is about Michel and did not summarize the theory alluded to by the link, it was cited; as the section on his theory was laid out in [1], but I did not know how to properly set the link from See Also:State racism. Any help on that would be appreciated...Also, maybe a section on French treatment of arabs in north africa and its colonies via laws discriminating against the indigenous as summarized by grandmaison.Robco311 (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Orphaned references in Institutional racism[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Institutional racism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Negationnism":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 01:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

checked both and found them to be identical[edit]

both ref the historians statement on the code of 1881 which instutionalized the racism perpetrated in the name of the french state which he called 'State Racism'.

Removed Section "In America's Original Sin"[edit]

This section appears to be vandalism added in January this year. This section does not meet Wikipedia quality standards, reads as an opinion piece, is improperly cited, the list goes on. Article was much stronger w/o this section. The author of the section should reintegrate some of their points in a manner that more fits in an encyclopedia. But, as it stands, I can't really discern a point from this section, even the header doesn't seem to make sense in context of the article. "Institutional Racism in America's Original Sin", yet the section doesn't even mention slavery, so I can't for the life of me figure out how that is an appropriate header for an already flawed section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.163.14 (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to point out, you seem to have missed the nascent point, Slavery is americas 'original sin'. We don't have to call it that, but it is in the piece.

Today the system and philosophy of institutionalized racism identified by Dr. King no longer exists.’[9] The term was introduced by Black Power activists Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in the late 1960s.[10] It referred to the institution of slavery and emancipation, the backlash against black empowerment and the resultant systems that emerged such as Jim Crow laws and segregation, which have evolved into housing discrimination, criminal law disparities and economic strangulation of minority communities.[11] In giving cover to the original sin and the resultant racism....

Robco311 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This reads as an opinion piece and should not be in an encyclopedia in this format. Also, I reiterate that the title "In America's Original Sin" does not fit the established format. I could work on rewriting this section to make it fit the rest of the article and title it differently so it both fits the format and sounds more encyclopedic, but I have a feeling my edits will just be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.163.14 (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't object to the term "America's Original Sin", it just strikes me as an inappropriate title for this section. If someone came to this article and had no idea what "America's Original Sin" referred to, they would not understand this term given the context in the section. To put it bluntly, this section is very poorly written. It is filled with weasel words, for example: "In giving cover to the original sin and the resultant racism of the Charleston shooter, the Journal proved that the very thing it’s editorial board claims does not exist it is blind to, as examples abound of it being an active part of race relations in the U.S. today." How has this been proven? Don't just tell us it is so, give us examples that it is so, and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. This is just one issue with this section. The above sentence is also poorly composed grammatically: a reflection of the style of this section as a whole. This simply adds to the confusion for the reader, and functions to bury the author's intended purpose in writing this passage. I feel that because of all of these issues, this section would best removed until someone can either integrate these points in a clearer, more developed manner in other sections, or rewrite this section completely. But, for the sake of not starting an editing war, I will not touch it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.163.14 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

And to add, you say that I have "missed the nascent point", but this is exactly my problem with this section. An encyclopedia needs to read so clear that if you have absolutely no knowledge on the subject matter you can read it and gain an understanding of it. But, really, no written work whose primary purpose is to educate and explain benefits from underdeveloped concepts and too much subtext. I'm saying that, I shouldn't have to read between the lines to get the point of a passage on Wikipedia. If I am, my instinct as an editor is to scrap the passage, because really, what is it adding to the article as a whole? 69.126.163.14 (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the section. It was essay-like, and its sources were, for the most part, opinion columns and not reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not see this as opinion, it's sourced, and relevant. (See above section.) I will accept edits, I have already amended the body, find a better title... Institutional racism rooted In America's original sin is the point being made...Robco311 (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You may not see it as opinion, but it is. It's about a newspaper editorial. See WP:Identifying reliable sources#Statements of opinion. One of your sources is a WordPress blog and another is a supposed article in The Root but the URL you cite is a mess.
The whole section reads like an essay, not like an encyclopedia article. Sorry, but if you want to write a blog, this isn't the place for that. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I can see you're only interested in your WP:POV, and just want an edit war. It might have been an editorial, but given the weight of the WSJ, it bears refuting. Robco311 (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem confused about the purpose of Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia, not a place to right great wrongs. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"Institutional racism no longer exists" = original research[edit]

The "new" section consisted of original research and looked suspiciously like the section I deleted last week (discussed in the preceding section). BeeCeePhoto, please stop trying to restore your essay under a new title. Read WP:No original research and WP:Identifying reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You missed the Rfc, and the opening of a dispute. You also commented that it was an editorial, and poorly cited. Now that I've added cites and examples you claim that its original research. Answer the dispute, dont try to bully me, and if you dont like the piece edit away at it. But as shown by the cites, it was more that just an editorial, it is substantial and deserves attention. Robco311 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree that it's too much WP:SYNTH. I know you've been making major additions to racism articles and they appear to all be in good faith, but this one is a bit much. Tone is fixable, synth/or is not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree that this is a ridiculous level of WP:SYNTH. Its a reasonable blog or opinion article. Its not an objective encyclopedia article. At a minimum every statement would need to be stated not as a fact, but as an attributed opinion. For example things such as The continued lack of educational opportunities and employment improvement for blacks is evidence enough that institutional racism, beyond any other factors, is the guiding force behind the racial divide in the U.S. today is completely unacceptable to be in WP:WikiVoice Gaijin42 (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Institutional racism no longer exists[edit]

@EvergreenFir (talk) @Gaijin42 (talk) -- It has been proposed in media that institutional racism is dead, as the U.S., and in particular the south, has replaced the system that enabled violence against minorities to persist.[1][2] The term was introduced by Black Power activists Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in the late 1960s.[3] It referred to the institution of slavery and emancipation, the backlash against black empowerment and the resultant systems that emerged such as Jim Crow laws and segregation,[4] which have evolved into housing discrimination, criminal law disparities and economic strangulation of minority communities.[5] Conservative pundits speaking thru the media, have made like statements which claimed that Institutional racism in America is dead, refuting examples which can be found of it being an active part of race relations in the U.S.[6] In 1963 the 16th st bombing turned many white Americans from racist groups like the Klu Klux Klan and was the watershed moment for many in government, but like the anti-reconstruction of the late 18th and early 19th century, the backlash of white America to the civil rights movement of the 60’s has continued to the present day.[7] While not as overt as segregation, it can be shown that there are 2 Americas, one believing Institutional racism is alive and well, and one which does not. The continued lack of educational opportunities and employment improvement for blacks has shown that institutional racism, along with related facets such as anti-affirmative action and legal precepts like California's proposition 209, is one force behind the racial divide in the U.S. today.[8][9]

Does this address the tone? Both side were found in the cites and it is neutral in presenting the subject, all that remains is the title. Robco311 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Section headers should represent the content, and content must be verifiable. The section header "Institutional racism no longer exists" represents a claim supported by an absurd synthesis of different opinion pieces—and rather than discussing these opinions objectively and as a whole, they're being translated into fact and presented mashed together like an essay. This is not even to mention the undue weight aspect. Here's a tip, if you want to discuss critical, media and/or academic commentary about the modern day existence of this concept, find different viewpoints from notable individuals and discuss them individually and in a balanced way in their own section. As written though it would need to be nuked, it's basically a hodgepodge of conservative commentary masquerading as fact. Swarm 02:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The original heading, which some found objectionable was In America's original Sin, which referred to the article/editorial in the WSJ that stated Institutional racism is dead. The statement by @User talk:Swarm about conservative commentary is the opposite of the paragraph. The conservative commentary was cited as evidenced by pundits who backed up the WSJ as correct in making the original assertion, and was refuted by the following citation of opposing published articles which state that it is not fact. So, I have to ask, which version of the paragraph are you saying is conservative commentary masquerading as fact, the one above which juxtaposes the opposing views, or the one that was deleted from the article, or neither? Robco311 (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Note - BeeCeePhoto was blocked indefinitely for repeated copyright violations. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Black people cannot practice black culture and expect to gain high status over non-black people?[edit]

Is this not what institutional racism really is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.185.19 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to specific changes within the article text? Institutional racism is generally the systemic oppression of a race, not a culture. "Culture" is a broad term, though. Scoundr3l (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

BL&D Peer Review[edit]

Your initial edits to the existing too paragraphs were great - you did a good job of improving the tone, making the writing more clear and fluid, and paraphrasing the quotes.

In the next paragraph, you included a lot of good information regarding incidents on college campuses, although I think it would be better, and more in an encyclopedic tone, if you referred to the incidents as "race-related" instead of "racist." In addition, I would consider talking less about the sources and more about the actual incidents - and then simply citing the sources.

The next paragraph was also really well done, and the sources again seemed to be solid. For the Department of Education portion, you introduced their report as being from 2016, but then gave statistics from different years. Does the 2016 report not contain updated statistics? If not, I would instead only mention that the Department of Education releases yearly reports with several different statistics on race-related incidents.

The following paragraph regarding hate crimes being falsely reported was a good way to keep your contribution unbiased, and show a different perspective. Although it is unfortunate to discuss false reports of hate crimes, it is a good way to weigh, though only slightly, against the countless unreported incidents.

Your final paragraphs regarding the spikes in hate crimes, and student responses to the hate crimes, is also very good. One idea to consider is perhaps talking about initiatives certain universities (if any) have made to raise awareness about hate crimes and make it easier to report them.

Really good job overall, I learned a lot reading this!

-- Claireregan1206 (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a review of the recent addition to a huge section on higher education. This section needs a lot of work and a lot of editing. Here's a few things to think about. First, when you edit a page, think about the overall tone of the page. What has been said already? What new information are you adding and where does it fit into the overall page? For example, this page is both a compilation of cases that already exist in other Wikipedia pages (e.g. reference to 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education) and some original parts, such as how Institutional Racism is different than regular racism. So, if there is already other better written Wikipedia pages, your edits should be a summary of what already has been written.
This entire Wikipedia page is way too long, and unnecessarily long. As I said before, there are already a lot of other better written Wikipedia pages, on issues relating to racism. So, one of the major edits that can be made, is just to shorten this entire section. (Most sections of the article could be shortened, but that is another story) This section could be cut in half. For example, you would want to remove all the references on individual cases of racism in the US. Wikipedia has clearly stated they are not a collection of information. I would strongly recommend you read that page. The problem with including individual cases, is that the page just becomes a listing of all news reports of cases of racism, without giving any context if racism is increasing, decreasing, being more reported or just a one off situation. Having scholarly reports or surveys that look at the overall trend of racism is note-worthy and there are a lot of reports that already exist. If an indivicual case is particularily note-worthy and creates larger change or discussion in society, then yes, that can be referenced. One criteria you can think about is, does the case have a Wikipedia page about it already?
Also, here is a statement that definitely needs to be deleted: It is important to be careful when reading material related to racism in higher education, as data and information are sometimes misrepresented, misinterpreted, or even false. This statement can be made about everything. The larger issue is that data and information on racism is difficult to measure and depending on the statistical method may be false. That can be put at the top of the page, but would need more context or citations.
This entire page needs to be looked at, and you are not the only editor who has needed a second look at your work. In fact, your edits are one of the better additions, compared to some of the other editors. I commend you for asking for peer review, and wish more people would get some feed-back. My comments are not meant to disuade you, but to give you a sense of how other editors look at Wikipedia pages. Please keep at it.

DivaNtrainin (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Institutional racism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)